Prolonged Incarceration Under PMLA Overrides Section 45 Rigours Under Article 21 of the Constitution

The petitioner was accused in a money laundering case (ML Case No. 1 of 2023) arising from an ECIR dated 21.10.2022, involving the alleged diversion of funds collected through Forex Trading

The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 3 years and 3 months in the present case and had previously spent over 2 years in custody for related predicate offences before being granted bail in those matters

Despite the filing of a third supplementary prosecution complaint, charges had not yet been framed in either the PMLA case or the predicate cases

The petitioner sought bail citing inordinate delay, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the prayer citing the gravity of the evidence and the rigours of Section 45 of the PML Act

1. Whether the prolonged period of incarceration and the lack of progress in the trial justify the grant of bail notwithstanding the statutory rigours of Section 45 of the PML Act.

2. Whether further detention of the petitioner violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily considered the interplay between the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 and the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court of India in V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, ED (2024) and Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate (2024), which hold that statutory restrictions on bail cannot override the constitutional right to liberty in cases of inordinate delay.

The Court observed that while there might be sufficient material on merit to invoke the restrictive conditions of Section 45 of the PML Act, the petitioner’s custody for over three years created a constitutional conflict.

The Court noted that neither the PMLA case nor the predicate offences were "anywhere near conclusion," and that charges had not even been framed.

Applying the logic from Manish Sisodia, the Court reasoned that prolonged incarceration without the prospect of a timely trial renders further detention violative of Article 21.

Consequently, the Court determined that the necessity of protecting the petitioner’s fundamental rights outweighed the statutory rigours of the PMLA in this specific instance of delay.

The Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with adequate sureties subject to stringent conditions, including the surrender of the petitioner's passport, a prohibition on leaving the territorial jurisdiction without leave, and regular appearance before the trial court.